Citation Nr: 0432544
Decision Date: 12/08/04 Archive Date: 12/15/04
DOCKET NO. 97-07 988 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas
THE ISSUE
1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell
fragment wound to the back.
2. To be clarified.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
K. Knight Enferadi, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from October 1942 to
January 1946.
This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from a June 1995 rating decision by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas.
The Board remanded this matter in July 1998 and in October
2003 for additional development. Those remand directives
were accomplished; however, additional development as noted
below is still required in this case.
In the post-remand brief dated in November 1, 2004, the
veteran's representative indicated that service connection
for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) had been granted in
a letter dated on June 9, 2003. The veteran filed a notice
of disagreement (NOD) on June 17, 2003 and substantiated the
appeal on July 25, 2003. According to the veteran's
representative a supplemental statement of the case was
issued to the veteran on July 12, 2004.
The Board also notes that the VA computer tracking system
shows that an issue on appeal is entitlement to an evaluation
in excess of 30 percent for PTSD. The Board requests that
the RO provide clarification as to the appeal status of this
matter.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran
if further action is required on his part.
REMAND
Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), VA
has a duty to notify the veteran of any information and
evidence needed to substantiate and complete a claim, and of
what part of that evidence is to be provided by the claimant
and what part VA will attempt to obtain for the claimant. 38
U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1)
(2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002).
VA must also advise a claimant to submit or identify any
additional evidence he feels may support his claim.
Pelegrini v. Principi (Pelegrini II), 17 Vet. App. 412
(2004). A review of the record indicates that the veteran
has not yet received the required notification.
1. The RO should review the record and
send an appropriate letter to the veteran
and any representative to ensure
compliance with all notice and assistance
requirements set forth in the VCAA and
its implementing regulations.
2. After the action requested above has
been completed, the RO should again
review the record considering all of the
evidence of record. If the claim of
service connection for residuals of
rheumatic fever, consisting of swollen
joints, remains denied, the veteran and
any representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto
The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and
argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for
additional development or other appropriate action must be
handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans Benefits
Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 707(a), (b), 117 Stat.
2651 (2003) (to be codified at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112).
_________________________________________________
JAMES L. MARCH
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003).